4.6 Review

Classifying neurocognitive disorders: the DSM-5 approach

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS NEUROLOGY
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 634-642

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nrneurol.2014.181

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health
  2. Department of Health and Human Services, USA [K07 AG044395]
  3. National Institute of Mental Health, USA [R01 MH099987]
  4. Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [568969]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurocognitive disorders-including delirium, mild cognitive impairment and dementia-are characterized by decline from a previously attained level of cognitive functioning. These disorders have diverse clinical characteristics and aetiologies, with Alzheimer disease, cerebrovascular disease, Lewy body disease, frontotemporal degeneration, traumatic brain injury, infections, and alcohol abuse representing common causes. This diversity is reflected by the variety of approaches to classifying these disorders, with separate groups determining criteria for each disorder on the basis of aetiology. As a result, there is now an array of terms to describe cognitive syndromes, various definitions for the same syndrome, and often multiple criteria to determine a specific aetiology. The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) provides a common framework for the diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders, first by describing the main cognitive syndromes, and then defining criteria to delineate specific aetiological subtypes of mild and major neurocognitive disorders. The DSM-5 approach builds on the expectation that clinicians and research groups will welcome a common language to deal with the neurocognitive disorders. As the use of these criteria becomes more widespread, a common international classification for these disorders could emerge for the first time, thus promoting efficient communication among clinicians and researchers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据